theSIGNAL SCIENCE
14 July 2026
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious."
NEWSBUSINESSTECHNOLOGYWORLDSCIENCECULTUREENVIRONMENTSPORT
Science

The Black Hole Rule That Broke After 50 Years

Physicists at Penn State have proposed a new way to measure black hole entropy that works even when these cosmic giants are spinning, merging, or slowly dying.

Picture a kettle boiling on a stove. Now picture something a billion times more violent — a black hole swallowing a star, or two black holes colliding at the edge of the observable universe. For fifty years, physicists have used the same basic rulebook for both. That rulebook, built by Stephen Hawking and colleagues in the early 1970s, connected the wild extremes of black holes to the familiar laws of thermodynamics.

It was elegant. It was also, it turns out, incomplete. The problem is surprisingly simple to state. Hawking's laws of black hole mechanics were designed for black holes sitting quietly in equilibrium — not changing, not growing, not fading.

But real black holes are never that polite. They form from collapsing stars, crash into each other, and slowly evaporate over unimaginable timescales through a quantum process Hawking himself predicted. "They were formulated for black holes at equilibrium, or unchanging over time, but black holes are constantly changing — they form, merge, and eventually evaporate," said Abhay Ashtekar, Atherton University Professor and Evan Pugh Professor of Physics Emeritus at Penn State, who led the research team. Ashtekar and his colleagues have now published a new approach in Physical Review Letters, selected by editors as a highlighted paper.

Photo: Dynamic Wang / Unsplash
A visualisation of two merging black holes, the kind of dynamic event Hawking's original framework could not fully describe.
Discuss
  • Why might scientists work with an incomplete theory for fifty years before replacing it?
  • The article says entropy 'can never decrease' — what does that mean for the future of the universe?
  • Should a discovery be considered less important if it only refines, rather than overturns, an earlier idea?
Science

Who Decides Which Science Gets Funded?

Here is a quiet rule change with loud consequences. The Trump administration's Office of Management and Budget has proposed handing authority over research grants to political appointees — people chosen for their politics, not their expertise. Right now, panels of independent scientists review grant applications. They judge the ideas, not the ideology. The proposed shift would change that balance dramatically. Researchers across the United States are alarmed. So are scientists in Europe and beyond, who watch American funding decisions closely — because where U.S. money goes, global research often follows.…
  • Should politicians ever have power over which scientific research gets funded?
∞
They were formulated for black holes at equilibrium, or unchanging over time, but black holes are constantly changing — they form, merge, and eventually evaporate.
Abhay Ashtekar, Atherton University Professor and Evan Pugh Professor of Physics Emeritus, Penn State University
Science

One Word Is Killing Endangered Species

Here is a riddle. You cannot shoot a Florida panther — but can you now bulldoze its home? Under a rule change announced on July 10, 2026, the Trump administration redefined one word — "harm" — in the 1973 Endangered Species Act, stripping out habitat destruction as a protected threat. For 50 years, "harm" covered both direct killing and habitat loss. That mattered enormously, because most endangered species — from American salmon to African forest elephants — disappear not from guns, but from vanishing ground beneath their feet. The Supreme Court upheld the broader definition as recently as 1995. Scientists and law professors warn this narrower reading could make genuine species recovery nearly impossible.…
  • If destroying a habitat is legal, can an endangered species ever truly be protected?
WORLD · Science
Scientists finally solved the mystery of Earth's greatest mass extinction
AMERICAS · Science
Q&A: Unforeseen consequences of the 'great aging' of America
OCEANIA · Science
Rare fossil goose rewrites the story of New Zealand's giant birds
EUROPE · Science
Almost a quarter of Dutch bee colonies did not survive last winter
theSIGNAL IN THE LAB
1VOCABULARY
equilibriumevaporate
thermodynamicsentropygravitational waves
habitat destructionappointees
2GRAMMAR FOCUS
Causative have/get — have something done
Use 'have/get + object + past participle' to describe arranging for someone else to do something for you, or to describe something that happens to the subject, often without their control.
reviewed · redefined · published · funded · detected · overturned · stripped
  1. Ashtekar and his team had their new framework in Physical Review Letters, where editors selected it as a highlighted paper.
  2. For fifty years, physicists had the laws of black hole mechanics for systems in equilibrium, which made them unsuitable for dynamic events.
  3. LIGO scientists can have gravitational wave signals with extraordinary precision, giving researchers data about black hole mergers.
  4. The Trump administration effectively had the word 'harm' in the Endangered Species Act, removing habitat destruction from its legal meaning.
  5. Under the proposed rule change, the government would have research grant applications by political appointees rather than independent scientists.
  6. Environmental groups are trying to get the new habitat ruling in court before further damage is done to endangered species.
3COLLOCATIONS
Match the verb on the left with the noun phrase it best collocates with on the right.
  1. produce
  2. uphold
  3. swallow
  4. sharpen
  5. strip out
4CRITICAL THINKING
All three articles describe moments when a single word, rule, or framework — 'harm', 'equilibrium', 'political appointee' — turns out to carry enormous hidden weight. What does this suggest about the way power actually works in science and law? Who benefits from keeping such definitions narrow, and who pays the price?
5CREATIVE · HEADLINES
Write a headline for the top story in each of the following styles. One line each, no explanation:
  • TABLOID NEWSPAPER
  • LUXURY MAGAZINE
  • ACTIVIST BLOG
6WRITING
The three articles all involve someone redefining something — entropy, 'harm', what counts as legitimate science — with consequences far beyond the original decision. Choose one of these redefinitions and write a short argument explaining whether it represents progress, retreat, or something more complicated.
7DEGREES OF EXTREMITY
Complete each ladder from mild to strong.
  • warm→→
  • adjusting→→
  • concerned→→
  • shrinking→→
  • tidying→→
  • changing→→
8SPEAKING
  1. Which article's consequences worry you most, and why?
  2. Can a single redefined word ever undo fifty years of law?
  3. Who should hold scientists accountable when theories prove incomplete?
  4. Does global science have a responsibility to challenge one country's policy?